Appendix K: Sea Level Rise Compendium August 2013

(1)

Introduction

The 2010 State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) included a specific objective related to

researching sea level rise The former objective 4.3 was worded to say, “Monitor climate change

and sea level rise research; create a compendium of existing studies and data.” For this reason,

the State Hazard Mitigation Plan Advisory Team (SHMPAT) began focusing efforts related to

sea level rise over the last three years,

The Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) was able to secure funding to allocate

towards accomplishing objective 4.3. As a part of their efforts, a focus group of subject matter

experts was established to share sea level rise documents and information. The result of their

research can be found within this compendium. The Division of Emergency Management (DEM)

is part of DEO’s sea level rise focus group and has kept track of the sea level rise efforts that

staff has taken part in over the last three years. DEM activities have been included within this

appendix, prior to the start of the compendium.

Moving forward, the SHMPAT will continue to address sea level rise and will expand

efforts to include climate change. Goal 4 of the 2013 SHMP states that the SHMPAT will,

“Support mitigation initiatives and policies that protect the state’s cultural, economic, and natural

resources.” As a part of achieving the goal, objective 4.5 reads, “Participate in climate change

and sea level rise research that will further the state and local government’s ability to plan for

and mitigate the impacts of future vulnerability.”

It is the goal of the SHMPAT to include as much relevant information on this topic as

possible in future mitigation plans, and to share it with the communities that will be greatly

impacted by such changes. We have seen significant increases in the amount of information

available in the last three years and expect that much more will become available during the

interim period.

(2)

Appendix K: Sea Level Rise Compendium

August 2013

Participation in Sea Level Rise and Climate Change Activities by DEM Mitigation Staff

Title

When was it?

Where was it?

Who hosted it?

Synopsis

Attended presentation

about sea level rise

February 2, 2011

Tallahassee, FL

Julie Dennis, DCA

planner

Presented by Julie Dennis, DCA

planner with special interest in

Waterfronts FL program

Coordination meeting

April 4, 2011

Tallahassee, FL

DCA (DEO) and

DEM

To discuss coordination between

DCA (DEO) and DEM on a grant to

study sea level rise/ coastal

adaptation

Meeting to coordinate

with DEO on coastal

adaptation grant work

January 5, 2012

Tallahassee, FL

DEO and DEM

Meeting to coordinate with DEO on

coastal adaptation grant work

Community

Resiliency Webinar

June 25, 2012

Webinar

GOMA

To learn about community resiliency

and climate change in coastal areas

Attended NOAA's

Social Coast webinar

July 11, 2012

Webinar

NOAA

To learn about community resiliency

and climate change in coastal areas

Sea Level Rise

Workshop

August 9, 2012

Tallahassee, FL

Florida Sea Grant,

and Apalachicola

National Estuarine

Research Reserve

The workshop discussed the basic

elements of sea level rise and the

effect that it will have on our coasts

and property.

"Legal Issues in

Coastal Change"

workshop

August 9, 2012

Tallahassee, FL

Florida Sea Grant,

and Apalachicola

National Estuarine

Research Reserve

Workshop to discuss ramifications

of coastal changes (climate change/

(3)

Appendix K: Sea Level Rise Compendium

August 2013

Title

When was it?

Where was it?

Who hosted it?

Synopsis

FEMA Region IV

Coastal Outreach

Coordination Call

August 12, 2012

NA

FEMA Region IV

Discussing the best practices and

lessons of coastal discovery.

Attended DEO

presentation on

climate change grant

activity

September 24,

2012

Tallahassee, FL

DEO

Update on grant activities & needs

Coastal Community

Resiliency

September 14,

2012

Naples, FL

Florida chapter of

the American

Planning

Association annual

conference

There was a session on planning for

community resiliency where a panel

discussed some of the planning

efforts around the state pertaining to

climate change and specifically sea

level rise. Also discussed some of

the potential impacts Florida could

see from sea level rise on

infrastructure, as well as some legal

issues pertaining to planning and sea

level rise.

Florida Climate

Institute Experts on

Sea Level Rise

Mitigation

November 16,

2012

Tallahassee, FL

Florida Climate

Institute

Highly respected researchers from

Florida universities came to voice

their opinion on their research and

potential mitigation measures for sea

level rise.

Long Term Recovery

Planning Summit:

Post Disaster

Redevelopment

Planning and Beyond

July 10-11, 2012

1201 Riverplace

Blvd

Jacksonville, FL

32207

South Atlantic

Alliance (Florida,

Georgia, North

Carolina and South

Carolina)

Provided an overview of Florida's

PDRP Initiative and learn from other

recovery efforts. Also discuss

pre-disaster planning for long- term

(4)

Appendix K: Sea Level Rise Compendium

August 2013

Title

When was it?

Where was it?

Who hosted it?

Synopsis

Coastal Community

Resiliency Focus

Groups

July 26, 2012

August 16, 2012

October 3, 2012

NA

DEO/ DEM Coastal

Community

Resiliency

Focus group calls to talk about

prevalent community resiliency

topics. Academic and planning

research was applied.

Risk and Response:

Sea Level Rise

Summit

June 20-22, 2012

Boca Raton, FL

Florida Atlantic

University Sea

Level Rise Summit

Sessions and discussions held to

create a portfolio of lessons learned

and a stimulus for further insight and

action in new policies and initiatives

concerning sea level rise.

Governors South

Atlantic Alliance

Conference

September 6-7,

2012

Charleston, SC

Governors South

Atlantic Alliance

Governors from the south-eastern

states gathered to discuss proactive

activities to encompass planning and

mitigation strategies for sea level

rise.

(5)

How Countries, States, and

Florida Address Sea Level Rise

A Compendium of Climate Adaptation Research

Florida

Department

of

Economic

Opportunity

11/15/2012

(6)

(7)

FLORIDA:

GENERAL

RESEARCH

&

PLANNING

Preparing

for

a

Sea

Change

in

Florida

Coastal

and

Ocean

Coalition

This report by the Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition details how climate change could impact the

state's coastal areas, and it broadly outlines possible adaptation solutions. It is intended to provide

guidelines for concrete, science‐based action on the critical issues Florida faces in light of climate change

and to stimulate informed debate for the preservation of Florida's natural resources.

Four primary categories of impacts are discussed: sea‐level rise, extreme weather events, higher ocean

temperatures, and ocean acidification. The potential effects of sea‐level rise are fully described, including

beach erosion, saltwater intrusion, and the submersion of marshes and coastal property. Discussions of

extreme weather events include severity, altering water flows, exacerbating runoff, and damaging coastal

habitats. For each of the four impact areas, recommendations are outlined for state and local government

responses, including specific agency actions, as well as regional and federal responses.

The Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition is a group of environmental organizations

working together to conserve, protect and restore Florida’s coastal and marine environment. Member

organizations include the following: Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Environmental Defense Fund,

Gulf Restoration Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Ocean

Conservancy, Reef Relief, and the Surfrider Foundation.

Source:

http://www.flcoastalandocean.org/PreparingforaSeaChange/Climate_Change_Guide_for_Florida_Preparing_for_a_ Sea_Change.pdf

(12)

Florida:

Public

Opinion

on

Climate

Change

I. Lead Agencies

a.

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

b.

University of Miami

c.

National Science Foundation

d.

Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions

II. Project description

a.

The goal of the study was to measure the perceptions of Florida residents about the causes

and consequences of climate change, and about potential solutions. The main findings are

presented in this report and are intended to aid policy makers, educators, the private

sector, and environmental organizations in their planning efforts in response to climate

change.

Source:

(13)

Florida

and

Climate

Change:

The

Costs

of

Inaction

I. Location: Tufts University

II. Lead Agencies

a.

Global Development and environment institute

b.

Stockholm environment institute – US Center

III. Project Description

a.

The report is the first detailed analysis on the potential consequences of continued climate

change for the state’s economy. The report concludes that, if left unchecked, climate change

will significantly harm Florida’s economy in the next several decades, and that impacts on

just three sectors – tourism, electric utilities, and real estate – together with effects of

hurricanes would shrink Florida’s Gross State Product by 5% by the end of this century.

Source:

(14)

Climate

Change

and

Land

Use

in

Florida,

Interdependencies

and

Opportunities

I. Lead Agencies

a.

Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida

b.

UF

II. Project Description

a.

This report shows that land use and climate change in Florida are deterministically linked

issues. Changes in land use over the next decade can adversely affect climate change, while

climate change itself will alter the form and function of the landscape. With its burgeoning

growth Florida stands at a crossroads with respect to its options for climate mitigation and

adaptation. Failure to develop and implement appropriate plans for proactive adaptation

could cost billions in lost revenue, while endangering the health and wellbeing of our

children, grandchildren and beyond. Alternatively, tremendous opportunity exists for

economic development through land management for climate mitigation and participation

in carbon markets. While all adverse effects of global warming cannot be avoided through

mitigation, proactive adaptation can confer resilience to managed and natural ecosystems,

while creating jobs and opportunities for enhancing the wellbeing of Floridians.

Source:

(15)

Keeping

Our

Heads

above

Water:

Surviving

the

Challenges

of

SLR

in

Florida

I. Lead Agencies

a.

Florida Institute for Conservation Science

b.

The Nature Conservancy

c.

Florida Native Plant Society

d.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

e.

The Jelks Family Foundation

f.

Disney's Animal Kingdom

II. Project Description

a.

The Florida Institute for Conservation Science has initiated a project to study and

communicate issues related to the impacts of (and adaptation to) sea level rise in Florida.

The first phase of this project included a scientific symposium, which was held January 18‐

20, 2010, at Archbold Biological Station. This meeting brought together scholars from

several disciplines to share information on sea level rise and its impacts in Florida and to

develop recommendations for further research and for changes in policy and management.

Future phases of this project include technical publications, communications with policy

makers and the public, and a larger conference focused on policy and management and

involving a diversity of stakeholders and decision makers. The latter conference is

tentatively scheduled for August 2010 at Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden in Miami.

Source:

(16)

SLR

Ready:

Model

Comprehensive

Plan

Goals,

Objectives,

and

Policies

to

Address

SLR

Impacts

in

Florida

I. Lead Agencies

a. UF Conservation Clinic b. Florida Sea Grant

c. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program II. Project Description

a. The purpose is to present selected model comprehensive planning goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's) to address sea level rise adaptation in a hypothetical city/county in Florida (Southwest Florida).

Source:

(17)

Florida’s

Energy

and

Climate

Change

Action

Plan

I. Principle conclusions from the Action Team Process

a. Florida’s resources, communities, and economy are expected to experience significant impacts if the current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not reversed

b. Early actions to address global climate change has significant energy security benefits for Floridians, while positioning the state to become a regional and hemispheric hub of green technology innovation and investment

c. Energy efficiency, demand‐side management, and energy conservation present florida with numerous opportunities to reduce energy costs, increase the buying power of Florida’s families, and make the state’s business sector more cost‐competitive in the global market

d. Investments today in low‐carbon energy sources will stimulate Florida’s economy and redirect current expenditures on imported fossil fuels toward Florida‐based energy sources retaining significant flows of money within local economies

e. Market‐oriented regulations – many already authorized in Florida law – will efficiently guide a low‐ carbon economy while protecting energy consumers, maintaining Florida’s agricultural

competitiveness, and building more sustainable communities II. Phase 2

a. Provides 50 separate policy recommendations, plus an additional set of comments toward the current regulatory work to develop Florida’s cap‐and‐trade program to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions

b. The total net cost savings of all Action Team recommendations combined is more than $28 billion from 2009‐2025

c. The action team recommends 50 policy actions relating to: i. Energy supply and demand

ii. Transportation and land use

iii. Agriculture, forestry, and waste management iv. Government policy and coordination

v. Adaptation strategies associated with climate change

Source:

(18)

Climate

Change

in

Coastal

Areas

in

Florida:

Sea

Level

Rise

Estimations

&

Economic

Analysis

to

Year

2080

Funded

by

National

Commission

on

Energy

Policy

and

Reported

by

FSU

In this report the results of downscaled modeling efforts of the effect of sea level rise on six coastal

counties in Florida are presented, including: Dade, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Monroe and Wakulla counties.

Additionally, assessments of the potential economic impacts that this phenomenon could have are

presented. Using representative storms, estimates are provided of the damage that could be inflicted

from storm surge and flooding, both of which will become more intense and more frequent as a

consequence of climate change. The value of the land that will be affected by these intensified events was

used to provide the basis for the economic assessment.

This is the scientific assessment report that supports the synthesized brief "Climate Change in Coastal

Florida ‐ Economic Impacts of Sea‐Level Rise," published by the National Commission on Energy Policy.

Source:

(19)

Florida

Department

of

Transportation

Development of a Methodology for the Assessment of Sea Level Rise Impacts on Florida’s Transportation

Modes and Infrastructure

The purpose of this report is to provide a methodology for assessing the impacts of SLR on FL transportation infrastructure for planning purposes. Research was conducted by FAU by a DOT grant. Scope of the project

includes a summary of global and state observations and projections of SLR, a discussion of the methodology used in developing consensus on SLR in Southeast FL, a recommended methodology for projecting SLR in FL, and identifying potentially vulnerable infrastructure, global to regional downscaling approaches, and data gaps in existing SLR scientific knowledge.

I. Methodology

a. FAU recommends using the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance for forecasting SLR in FL

b. Considers scenarios of possible future rates of mean sea level change over various planning horizons

c. Includes maps from Port Everglades, Dania Beach, and others II. SE FL Regional Climate Change Compact Consensus Projections

a. Planning Horizon:

i. 2030 = 3‐7 SLR in inches (low‐high) ii. 2060 = 9‐24 SLR in inches

III. FAU Research techniques

a. FAU used the Weiss Overpeck 1‐meter SLR projection for FL to illustrate a downscaling technique developed to identify potentially vulnerable transportation infrastructure

b. FAU researchers applied the evaluation techniques to Dania Beach, Punta Gorda, and Key Largo, FL. c. Research includes a discussion of the potential impacts of SLR to transportation infrastructure,

including drainage, roadway base, and surface water impacts, and a summary of adaptation strategies and tools

d. SLE generally use Satellite altimetry and tidal data

e. Two main types of data used for land analysis in SLR studies are LiDAR and contour DEMs (Digital Elevation Model)

IV. Short‐term recommended actions

a. Developing a sketch planning tool to apply the USACE methodology to produce statewide and regional projections of SLR and downscaling techniques to identify and assess potentially vulnerable infrastructure

i. Downscaling evaluation approach = 4 step process ii. State SLR projections

1. Integration of FDOT state roadway data and State SLR Projections for the years 2030, 2060, and 2100 using USACE methodology

2. Preliminary identification of state road segments potentially vulnerable to a 3 ft of SLR

3. Creation of inventory of potentially vulnerable state roadways iii. Regional SLR projections

(20)

1. Evaluate roadways with more detailed topographic information

2. Integration of regional FDOT state roadways data and low resolution LiDAR data 3. Evaluation of current and year 2100 topographic conditions

4. Identification of specific roadway sections potentially vulnerable to SLR iv. Localized SLR projections

1. Integration of regional FDOT state roadways data and high resolution LiDAR data 2. Evaluation of year 2100 topographical conditions of specific roadway

links/identification of specific roadway sections potentially vulnerable to SLR v. On The Ground (OTG) evaluation

1. Verification of vulnerability using construction drawings & survey data V. Long‐term recommended actions

a. Developing a no‐regrets and gradual adaptive management strategy in transportation planning and integrating SLR projections with groundwater, surface water, and storm surge models to better assess the vulnerabilities of transportation modes and infrastructure

VI. Data Gaps

a. Data to understand land forms and where and how water will flow b. Monitoring data and environmental drivers

c. Consistent SLR scenarios and projections across agencies to support local planning d. Data to characterize vulnerabilities and impacts of SLR

e. Community characteristics – data on demographics, societal vulnerabilities, economic activity, public attitudes and understanding of risks, etc

f. Legal framework and administrative structure

VII. Tools needed for adaptation and planning of transportation infrastructure

a. Communication tools for stakeholder engagement, visioning, and consensus building b. Tools to monitor and model current and future rates of SLR

c. Visualization and scenario‐building tools

d. Implementation tools to build institutional capacity and implement adaptation plans

e. Interagency coordination on research, policy agendas, and funding are needed to provide the package of data, tools, and processes

f. Regional coordination of transportation planning

g. GIS maps as tools to identify infrastructure potentially at risk from SLR

Source:

(21)

Adaptive

Response

Planning

to

Sea

Level

Rise

in

Florida

and

Implications

for

Comprehensive

and

Public

‐

Facilities

Planning

I. Background

a. We will experience SLR for centuries if not millennia because of the lag in achieving temperature equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans

b. The long timescales of SLR suggest that coastal management, including spatial planning, needs to take a long‐term view on adaptation to SLR and climate change, especially with long‐life

infrastructure

c. Areas that are not build out are where other options (besides protections) may be feasible

d. Recently published projections of SLR by 2100 relative to approximately 1990 range from less than 1 foot to more than 15 feet

i. Based on analysis of current trends or derived from an array of scenarios and model projections build on different assumptions about future greenhouse gas emissions II. Purpose and Focus

a. Focus on implications of SLR on planning and management of 3 major elements of local infrastructure

i. Water supply systems that draw from aquifers or surface waters close to the coast ii. Centralized wastewater management systems located in low‐lying areas near the coast,

including those with surface water discharges of treated wastewater iii. Highways, bridges, and causeways in coastal areas

b. Interest with the state of adaptive response planning for such infrastructure III. Regional Consideration

a. Differences in both relative and eustatic sea level observations

b. Local land subsidence or uplift are primarily responsible for differences in observed SL

c. Regional variations in wind patterns and ocean currents, as well as seawater temperature, salinity, and density, also may affect observed rates of eustatic SLR

IV. Potential Impacts a. 4 major impacts

i. Inundation and shoreline recession

ii. Increased flooding from severe weather events

iii. Saltwater contamination of ground water and surface water supplies iv. Elevated coastal ground water tables

b. For a 1‐foot rise in SL, the shore will recede by 50‐100 feet

c. Infrastructure that lies in the path of shoreline recession may be adversely affected in several ways i. Intermittent flooding from spring tides

ii. Scouring and undermining of above‐ground facilities, road bases, and bridge abutments iii. Interfere with navigation under bridges and may increase the exposure of bridges to

saltwater spray with resultant increases in spalling of concrete and more rapid corrosion of steel bridge components and rebar in older bridges

iv. As flood zones shift higher and further landward, facilities previously sited in what were considered to be safe zones, may experience floods formerly classified as 100‐year events

(22)

v. Structures designed to withstand the force of storm waves and moving floodwaters of a given intensity will be more likely to be subjected to stronger forces

V. Adaptive response options

a. 3 categories: protection, retreat, and accommodation

i. Highly developed coastlines will be protected from SLR with a combination of hard and soft engineering measures

b. Protection

i. The physical measures that can be used to protect developed areas from erosion and inundation include construction of flood protection works, beach nourishment, dune building, and marsh building

c. Retreat

i. “rolling easement” under which human activities are required to yield the right of way to naturally migrating shorelines

ii. FL law empowers the state DEP to require the adjustment, alteration, or removal of any structure that intrudes onto sovereignty lands of the state below the mean high water line of any tidal water body

1. The agency has rarely, if ever, invoked this authority

iii. Question of what to do with infrastructure threatened by inundation and shoreline recession

d. Accommodation

i. SLR can be accommodated over the short term by elevating structures and/or the land upon which they are built

ii. Longer‐term SLE accommodation will require directing new development away from areas that are anticipated to be affected by inundation, shoreline recession, and advancing coastal flood boundaries

1. Setbacks

iii. Prohibit development in larger hazard zones that are and will be susceptible to both shoreline and coastal storm flooding

VI. State policies

a. 35 states have prepared or are in the process of preparing climate action plans concerned with mitigating greenhouse gas emissions

b. 6 states (AZ, CA, MD, NC, OR, and WA) explicitly do or will address climate change adaptation in those plans

VII. FL Planning/Policy Findings

a. There are no explicit requirements that state, regional, or local planning entities address SLR in land use or infrastructure planning

b. Statutory planning time frames are generally too short to directly encompass SLR impacts c. There are provisions within these planning frameworks that offer appropriate contexts within

which SLR adaptive response planning could be addressed

Source:

(23)

Initial

Estimates

of

the

Ecological

and

Economic

Consequences

of

Sea

Level

Rise

on

the

Florida

Keys

through

the

year

2100

I. Method

a. Future shoreline locations and distributions of major habitats of Big Pine Key in the year 2100 were estimated using sea level rise scenarios described in the scientific literature

b. In every scenario the island became smaller, marine and intertidal habitat moves upslope at the expense of upland habitat, and property values are diminished; Inundation would displace native species dependent on upland habitat and threaten property

c. Use of LIDAR and SLAMM d. Scenarios

i. 1: 18 cm, best‐case: $11 billion in property value and 58,800 acres are at risk of inundation ii. 2: 35 cm

iii. 3: 59 cm iv. 4: 100 cm

v. 5: 140 cm II. Results/recommendations

a. Need to identify long‐term impacts of SLR on the FL keys and to begin taking near‐term steps to minimize the negative consequences of those impacts

b. Approach for protecting natural areas and ecosystems

i. Identification of “core areas” with the best chances of persistence during SLR ii. Intensive management of core areas to minimize loss of biodiversity

iii. En‐situ conservation, including relocation of vulnerable species to less vulnerable areas c. Identifying core areas

i. Elevation ii. Representation iii. Replication iv. Connectivity

v. Effective management

III. “No regrets” strategy for managing Florida Keys natural areas for SLR a. Fire management

i. SLR is expected to accelerate forest succession, and the careful application of prescribed fire is the only economically viable and ecologically appropriate antidote to that succession b. Invasive exotic species management

c. Wetland restoration

i. Filing or plugging ditches may be essential to prevent unnaturally rapid infiltration of interior wetland, transitional, and upland habitats by saltwater

ii. Restoring hydrological connectivity by removing obsolete roadbeds and installing culverts under functional roads

Source:

(24)

Climate

Change

and

the

FL

Keys

I. Lead Agencies

a.

NOAA

b.

Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program

c.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Program

II. Project Description

a.

The study provides alternative estimates, using scenario‐planning techniques, of the

medium‐ and long‐term socioeconomic effects that may arise from climate change in the

Florida Keys. The researchers used four global scenarios from a 2000 report by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); however, the scenarios for the Keys

were updated based on scientific developments since 2000. Projections for the Keys were

developed for each scenario looking at population trends, income, remaining land, coral

cover, and total income. A series of policy recommendations are included at the conclusion

of the report.

Source:

(25)

Comprehensive

Everglades

Restoration

Plan

I. Predictions

a. Models estimate that sea level could rise by 3‐5 feet which could jeopardize an estimated 13.5 million people that live within 25 miles of shoreline

II. Lead Agencies

a. US Army Corps of Engineers

b. South Florida Water Management District III. CERP

a. Outlines a framework to guide the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of central and southern Florida

b. One of the main goals of CERP is to redirect 1.7 billion gallons of freshwater a day into the areas that need it the most, such as the Everglades

c. Approved by Congress and awarded $7.8 billion dollars of funding for projects. IV. Purpose

a. CERP Climate Change Team was created with a vision to “minimize future negative impacts and adaptation costs… [by collaborating] to quickly identify climate change sensitivities in natural areas and developed areas” in order to create and implement adaptation policies by 2015.

b. CERP Partners are providing various tools and information to create sea level rise guidance for the everglades

V. Outcomes

a. Using the CERP framework to begin to adapt to the effects of climate change may hold promise because federal, state, and local partnerships have already been established and there is a pre‐ established source of funding for future projects.

Source:

(26)

Participatory

Scenario

Planning

for

Climate

Change

in

Southern

Florida’s

Greater

Everglades

Landscape

I. Location: MIT

II. Lead agencies:

a.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

b.

U.S. Gelogical Survey

III. Project Description

a.

Project developed a set of spatially‐articulate potential future land use maps that allows the

exploration of the interaction between global climate change, human population settlement

preferences, and state and local policies. In particular, one can begin to judge the

effectiveness of current conservation strategies against a landscape in which people ‐ as

well as species ‐ are likely to relocate in response to climate change.

Source:

(27)

Climate

Change

Action

Plan

for

the

Florida

Reef

System

2010

‐

2015

I. Purpose

a. The action plan is intended to guide coordination of reef management across many jurisdictions and serve as a more detailed, Florida‐specific companion to the climate change goal and objectives in “NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Goals and Objectives 2010‐2015”

b. 3 main goals: increase resiliency through active management, enhance communication and awareness, and conduct targeted research.

c. Identifies ways to increase reef resiliency to climate change and minimize negative impacts on reef‐ dependent industries such as diving and snorkeling tourism, and commercial and recreational fishing

d. Outlines a holistic, adaptable five‐year program that Florida’s reef managers can undertake in collaboration with reef users and other stakeholders to minimize the damage and associated impacts of climate change. It is intended to be adopted and updated at least every five years. II. Top ten priority climate change actions for the Florida reef system

a. Improve regulations and management that facilitate adaptation to climate change and ocean acidification

b. Develop and implement a marine zoning plan that incorporated resilience‐based concepts

c. Integrate climate change predictions and uncertainties into Florida’s comprehensive planning laws and procedures

d. Continue and expand the FRRP disturbance response monitoring

e. Decrease the likelihood of negative fishing, diving, and other reef use impacts by increasing law enforcement presence and regulatory compliance

f. Develop scientific climate change fact sheets

g. Forecast the potential social and economic effects of climate change on reef‐dependent industries and communities to measure their vulnerability and resilience and determine cost‐to‐benefit ratios of any proposed climate change mitigation/adaptation measures

h. Increase awareness

i. Monitor environmental variables linked to coral bleaching and other climate change impacts j. Develop scientific models of the Florida reef system to help predict its response to physical,

chemical, and socio‐economic shifts associated with climate change

Source:

(28)

Ecological

Effects

of

SLR

in

the

Florida

Panhandle

and

Coastal

Alabama

I. Intended purpose:

a. Improve scientific understanding of the factors and scales necessary to evaluate shore zone modification and help develop a predictive tool of ecosystem modification due to SLR II. Project Background

a. Pilot EESLR project began in NC in 2005 III. Project Implementation

a. Workshop was held in January 2008 b. 5 groups

i. Geomorphology and physical processes ii. Subtidal habitats

iii. Terrestrial biological resources iv. Water quality and hydrology

v. Modeling

IV. General strategic recommendations

a. Perform targeted studies of biological and physiological tolerances to change b. Utilize historical understanding of community retreat

c. Improve understanding of benthic, nearshore, and upstream habitat connectivity

d. Improve understanding of the present and future distribution of habitats and the ability of species to migrate

e. Use standardized parameters to help drive models

f. Ensure adequate time scales so that time scales of concern for ecological effects are as long as the time scales for planning critical infrastructure

V. Project outcomes and conclusions

a. Use relevant scientific data to determine the factors and scales necessary to evaluate shore zone modification and develop a predictive tool of ecosystem modification due to SLR

Source:

(29)

Retrospective

and

Prospective

Model

Simulations

of

SLR

Impacts

on

Gulf

of

Mexico

Coastal

Marshes

and

Forests

in

Waccasassa

Bay,

Florida

I. Study Purpose

a. Florida has extensive low elevation coastal habitats

b. SLAMM simulation to improve understanding of the magnitude and location of these changes for 58,000 ha of the Waccasassa Bay region of Florida’s central Gulf of Mexico coast

c. Prospective runs of SLAMM using .64 m, 1 m, and 2 m SLR scenarios predict substantial changes over this century in the area covered by coastal wetland systems including net losses of coastal forests (69%, 83%, and 99%), inland forests (33%, 50%, and 88%), but net gains of tidal flats (17%, 142%, and 3,837%)

II. Background

a. The 4 primary processes used to predict wetland fate with SLR are inundation, erosion, overwash, and saturation

b. Conducted both retrospective and prospective SLAMM analyses for an approximately 58,000ha area surrounding and including Waccasassa Bay Preserve State Park in the Big Bend region of Florida

c. Compare results of SLAMM hindcast with those from data from 13 permanent plots monitored since 1992

III. Results

a. Implication from findings at the site level is that undeveloped, unprotected, lands inland from the coastal forest should be protected to accommodate upslope migration of this natural community in response to rising seas

b. Results from SLAMM hindcast agree with field observations of the effects of SLR on the study area along the Gulf coast of Florida

c. 30% of the coastal forest was adjusted to saltmarsh in the model based on the elevation input layer – in actuality not really noticeable in some cases yet

d. Model predicts community composition when wetlands have come to equilibrium with a given sea level, meaning that it will not accurately predict short‐term transitional effects

e. SLAMM also predicted higher conversion of coastal forest into saltmarsh than predicted by Castaneda and Putz

Source:

(30)

Bursting

the

Bubble

of

Doom

and

Adapting

to

SLR

I. Lead Agencies

a.

RWPaskinsn Consulting, Inc.

b.

FSU

c.

Timothy Dixon

d.

Reed Noss

e.

Anthony Oliver‐Smith

f.

Francis Putz

g.

Thomas Ruppert

h.

Kenneth Edward Sassaman

i.

Michael Volk

II. Project Description

a.

The report discusses the adaptive management process that specifies one or more essential

actions necessary to reduce the vulnerability of built and natural environments to rising

seas.

Source:

http://www.spacecoastclimatechange.com/documents/resources/Bursting_the_Bubble_of_Doom_and_Adapting_t o_slr.pdf

(31)

Integrated

Modeling

for

the

Assessment

of

Ecological

Impacts

of

SLR

I. Lead Agencies

a.

UCF

b.

Dewberry, Inc.

c.

Northwest Florida Water Management District

d.

Florida State University

e.

University of Florida

f.

University of South Carolina

g.

NOAA

II. Project Description

a.

The study team, led by Scott Hagen, Ph.D., of the University of Central Florida, will develop

sea level rise computer models to predict the impacts storms and rising water pose to the

northern Gulf’s coastline, including shoreline and barrier island erosion. The results of the

study will be incorporated into coastal ecosystem planning for restoration efforts and other

natural resource management decisions in the region. It may also help oil spill responders

better understand oil that may reside in the subsided ecosystems.

Source:

http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/climatechange/current/slr/abstracts.aspx

(32)

Effects

of

Climate

Change

on

Florida’s

Ocean

and

Coastal

Resources

A

Special

Report

to

the

Florida

Energy

and

Climate

Commission

and

the

People

of

Florida

The Florida Oceans and Coastal Council prepared this report in 2009 to provide a foundation for future

discussions of the effects of global climate change on Florida's ocean and coastal resources, and to inform

Floridians about the current state of scientific knowledge regarding climate change. The report provides

a high‐level overview of the impacts to infrastructure, human health and the economy, as well as key

drivers such as increasing air temperatures, warming ocean temperatures, and sea level rise. For each

driver, effects such as altered severity and frequency of hurricanes and precipitation patterns, are

discussed in terms of probable and possible outcomes. Research priorities for the Council that support

the impacts and effects identified are outlined.

The report is meant to provide important and easy to understand information for legislators,

policymakers, governmental agencies, and members of the public who are working to address, or who

are interested in, issues related to climate change in Florida.

Source:

(33)

Assessment

of

Redefining

Florida’s

Coastal

High

Hazard

Area

I. Purpose

a. This report examines how the 2006 legislative change to coastal high hazard area (CHHA) policies introduced by HB 1359, changed the CHHA boundaries and may impact resiliency and land development in Florida’s coastal communities

b. The focus of this report is to assess the impact of the new boundary definition for the CHHA c. The policy case study also raises serious questions about the role of science and planning analysis

in the policy formulation process. II. Background

a. New language HB 1359: the coastal high hazard area is the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line is established by a SLOSH computerized storm surge model.

III. Methodology

a. Research is based on Florida’s three treasure coast counties

b. Part II: provides a brief summary of the CHHA regulations, criticisms raised by opponents, and the controversy that spurred its re‐examination

c. Part III: summarizes the GIS methodology and the qualitative data used in the assessment of the impact of the new boundary delineations in the three treasure coast counties of Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River

d. Part IV: presents findings followed by the research conclusions, which frame the analysis in the context of maintaining and improving community resiliency to hurricanes and in terms of its potential to encourage additional land development

e. Part V: presents a discussion of the evolving CHHA policy, why we believe HB 1359 represents a change in policy direction, and questions the adoption of the SLOSH category 1 criterion

IV. Findings

a. The new definition based on the SLOSH model for a category 1 hurricane redefines the spatial geography of the zone in ways that may compromise resiliency

i. It would remove CHHA regulations from some of the most vulnerable coastal lands, specifically coastal areas adjacent to the ocean, with the evacuation zone, but situated at higher base elevations

ii. It adds land that is zones for conservation or recreation use and which is already protected from imprudent development by its zoning designations and wetland regulations

iii. Change in boundaries might kindle redevelopment activity of “soft‐sites” as several key parcels and desirable neighborhoods will become eligible for upzoning reconsideration b. The most striking difference between the two boundary definitions is the shape of the regulated

area. The new CHHA is topographically based and thus includes parts of this coastal strip that are below the storm surge level, but excludes areas of higher elevation despite proximity to the ocean or intercoastal waterway. Therefore the CHHA is no longer a contiguous blanketed area, but rather resembles “swiss cheese” where lands above the topographic level of the storm surge for a category 1 storm are removed from the CHHA zone

V. Recommendations

a. The time has come to holistically consider the environmental, hazard mitigation, land use, and economic development issues related to coastal planning

b. In terms of the coastal high hazard area, it should be broadened to embrace diverse aspects of natural hazard mitigation. Defined at a regional scale through a coastal sector plan that reflects variability of local geo‐morphology an socio‐political linkages among neighboring jurisdictions c. The CHHA regulation ought to be reexamined and perhaps new language should be developed that

revisits the purpose and objectives of the CHHA holistically Source:

(34)

Florida’s

Resilient

Coasts:

A

State

Policy

Framework

for

Adaptation

to

Climate

Change

I. Lead Agencies

a.

FAU

b.

Center for Urban and Environmental Solution

c.

National Commission on Energy Policy

II. Project Description

a.

The project presents a comprehensive policy framework which will assist Florida state

government 1) in assessing the likely impacts of climate change on its coastal regions and

communities and then 2) developing and adopting policies and programs that will enable

the state, its communities, and its residents to adapt to and adaptively manage those

impacts over the near and long term.

Source:

(35)

FLORIDA

CITIES

City

of

Punta

Gorda

Adaptation

plan

I. Location: City of Punta Gorda

II. Lead Agencies

a.

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program

b.

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council

III. Project Description

a.

This report identifies the alternative adaptations that could be undertaken to address the

identified climate change vulnerabilities for the City of Punta Gorda. These adaptations are

presented in the order of prioritized agreement from the public meetings. Only the highest

agreement adaptation in each vulnerability area is fully developed for potential

implementation. One of the utilities of this approach is that it provides a variety of

adaptation options, which the City could select for implementation, adaptive management,

and subsequent monitoring.

Source:

(36)

City

of

Satellite

Beach

Municipal

Adaptation

to

Sea

‐

Level

Rise

I. Project Purpose

a. In the fall of 2009, the City of Satellite Beach, Florida, authorized a project designed to: i. Assess municipal vulnerability to rising sea level

ii. Initiate the planning process to properly mitigate impacts II. Facts

a. High precision satellite altimeters indicate sea level has been rising at 3.3+/‐ 0.4 mm per year b. Three basic option in responding to sea‐level rise

i. Protect ii. Retreat iii. Accommodate

c. Results indicate about 5% of the City landscape will submerge during the initial +2ft rise, with inundation generally restricted to fringing wetlands and finger canal margins proximal to the Banana River

d. The “tipping point” towards catastrophic inundation is +2ft, forecast to occur around 2050. e. The City has about 40 years to formulate an implement a mitigation plan

III. Methodology

a. Bathtub model – based upon the flooding of static terrain b. Not a serious weakness because:

i. Project designed as a pilot program to provide base‐line

ii. Likely magnitude of geomorphic change would not be significant iii. Presence of extensive coastal armoring along municipal shorelines IV. Adaptive management

a. On‐going and iterative process that specifies one or more essential actions necessary to reduce the vulnerability to rising seas

V. Initial steps

a. Comprehensive Planning Advisory Board approved a series of updates and revisions to the City’s Comp Plan

i. If approved, the amendments will provide a legal basis for implementing an adaptive management plan and specific actions designed to mitigate the City’s vulnerability to sea‐ level rise

VI. Three steps

a. Development of a 3‐D model or “base map” of the City

b. Compilation and mapping of “critical infrastructure and assets”

c. Quantification of the extent to which the City and its critical assets would be inundated by sea‐level rise

Source:

(37)

Municipal

Adaptation

to

SLR

–

Satellite

Beach

I. Location: Satellite Beach

II. Lead Agencies

a.

RWParkinson Consulting, Inc

III. Project Description

a.

In the fall of 2009, the City of Satellite Beach, Florida, authorized a project designed to:

assess municipal vulnerability to rising sea level and initiate the planning process to

properly mitigate impacts.

IV. Integration into Local Plan Framework

a.

Comprehensive Planning Advisory Board to approve a series of updates and revisions to

the City’s Comp Plan. If approved, the amendments will provide a legal basis for

implementing an adaptive management plan and specific actions designed to mitigate the

City’s vulnerability to sea‐level rise

V. Methodology/Predictions

a.

Plan uses the bathtub model, based upon the flooding of static terrain. High precision

satellite altimeters indicate sea level has been rising at 3.3+/‐ 0.4 mm per year. Results

indicate about 5% of the City landscape will submerge during the initial +2ft rise, with

inundation generally restricted to fringing wetlands and finger canal margins proximal to

the Banana River. The “tipping point” towards catastrophic inundation is +2ft, forecast to

occur around 2050.

VI. Project/Actions/Conclusions

a.

The City has about 40 years to formulate an implement a mitigation plan

Source:

(38)

Yankeetown,

FL

Coastal

Forests

Retreat

I. UF research

a. Investigating coastal forest decline and replacement by saltmarsh in Yankeetown since mid‐1990s b. Results: consequence of chronic stresses of SLR coupled with the punctuated disturbances of

storms and droughts

i. Salt is the primary culprit II. Salt

a. Health and diversity of the river side forests is testimony to occasional cleansing by fresh water b. Greenhouse experiments involving potted plants grown in salt solutions in colorful plastic

swimming pools confirmed the ranking of tree species’ salt tolerance observed in the field i. Salt tolerance increase with tree size

c. For salt‐sensitive species, even the occasional sea surge, especially if followed by dry conditions, can be fatal

III. Important to remember that the forests are being replaced by saltmarshes, which have their own virtues

Source:

(39)

FLORIDA

COUNTIES

&

REGIONS

Lee

County

Climate

Change

Vulnerability

Assessment

I. Five Future Scenarios for 2100

a. A condition that involves a future in which mitigative actions are undertaken to reduce the human influence on climate change

b. A 90% probable future predicted by the intergovernmental panel on climate change c. A 50% probable future predicted by IPCC

d. A 5% probable future predicted by IPCC

e. A “very worst” future in which no actions are taken to address climate change

II. Report assesses significant potential climate‐related changes in air and water and the effects of those changes on climate stability, sea level, hydrology, geomorphology, natural habitats and species, land use changes, economy, human health, human infrastructure, and variable risk projections

III. Prioritized ranking for climate change vulnerabilities a. Altered hydrology

b. Climate instability/storm severity c. Habitat and species changes d. Geomorphic (landform) changes

e. Sea level rise and water temperature and chemistry changes f. Infrastructure impacts and land use changes

g. Air temperatures and chemistry changes and human health h. Human economy

i. Variable risk

IV. 5 major stressors of climate change

a. Changes in the ratio of atmospheric gases b. Changes in air temperature and water vapor c. Changes in water body temperature

d. Changes in water chemistry e. Changes in sea level

Source:

http://www.leecounty.com/gov/dept/sustainability/Documents/Lee%20County%20Climate%20Change%20Vul nerability%20Assessment%20Final%20201.pdf

(40)

Lee

County

Climate

Change

and

Resiliency

Strategy

I. Lead Agencies

a.

SW FL Water Management District

II. Project Description

a.

The CCRS includes a process for identifying potential climate change resiliency strategies

through coordination and consultation with local government leadership in 39 Lee County

departments and divisions, including constitutional offices. Identification of resiliency

strategies that could be utilized by Lee County to reduce the negative effects of climate

change will also help in positioning the County to take advantage of potential climate

prosperity opportunities. The CCRS is a toolbox that contains a wide variety of ideas and

opportunities for the County to employ in climate change planning, energy savings, and

cost savings. The CCRS informs the County of options and opportunities but it does not

prioritize those actions or direct County policy. Prioritization would require a full public

planning process incorporating public participation as part of a full adaptation plan.

Source:

http://www.swfrpc.org/content/Natural_Resources/Ecosystem_Services/Lee_County_Climate_Change_Resiliency_ Strategy.pdf